Hate Speech Public Consultation

Chips Lovell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118432075#Comment_118432075

I think people with genuine concerns would be prepared to listen to points that address those concerns. What I'm referring to is those who keep insisting that this is some kind of conspiracy to facilitate repression whilst ignoring all evidence to the contrary. At some point, you just have to acknowledge that the facts don't matter to these people and there's little point in engaging with them.

BattleCorp1

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118428711#Comment_118428711

I'm not sure exactly what you are asking me. If you are asking me if I would support someone being prosecuted for genuinely suggesting that kn..........babies be used as shark bait, then yes I would support a prosecution for that. But if it was said 'in jest' with no malice intended (kind of like a Frankie Boyle joke or as a funny/unfunny meme), then no I wouldn't be supportive of that person being prosecuted. It depends on context.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118432145#Comment_118432145

The irony is that could easily be said about those opposing the posters voicing their concerns on this thread. There's been a variety of posters on the thread who are critical of the proposed legislation who have provided detail on their whys, and by providing facts to support their positions.

If you disagree with them, disagree... but don't dismiss their concerns. The value of a democratic system is that people are involved/interested in most aspects of governance. It is much worse when people sit back and wait for changes to be implemented without their interest.

As for the conspiracy suggestion, that's just another way to dismiss opposing opinions. There are social movements in all western societies which seek to promote and elevate the concerns or positions of minorities, whether it's the NGOs, activists or lobby groups. That's not a suggestion of a conspiracy but the acceptance of the way things are in the world.

Chips Lovell

I'm not saying dismissal should always be the first port of call, but it does become necessary if people won't engage with the facts. If someone asserts the earth is flat and you repeatedly present evidence to the contrary, which they repeatedly ignore, at some point you have to dismiss them because you're simply wasting your time continuing to engage.

There are of course, cases where dismissal should be the immediate reaction. Do you really think someone should take an assertion that they're "building gulags" seriously?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118432324#Comment_118432324

No, but the nature of the internet is that some people will express extreme viewpoints. Does that mean that everyone else who also opposes the same idea should be grouped/associated with that extreme viewpoint? Which is what you've just attempted to do.

What are all these facts that people are supposedly arguing against? I've been following the thread for a while now, rarely posting, but staying relevant to the ongoing arguments, and I haven't seen any of these facts supporting the legislation that counter the concerns of those objecting. A load of opinions supported by external information/facts.. but those objecting to the legislation haven't been arguing against any facts.. not that I've seen anyway.

However, the fact is that hate crimes occur everywhere regardless of what legislation is implemented. Having such legislation in place doesn't stop hate crimes from happening, and while many posters here seem to be very focused on the hate crime aspect of the legislation, the proposal covers a range of other situations which are far more open to interpretation.

RobbieTheRobber

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118432862#Comment_118432862

Does any legislation stop crime. Does the criminalisation of drugs stop people from buying selling or taking drugs. Can we legislate away murder?

Chips Lovell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118432862#Comment_118432862

I very specifically said "some" people. Not all people.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118432959#Comment_118432959

The association was made. We both know how language, and internet discussions work.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118432862#Comment_118432862

Having any type of legislation doesn't stop crime.

There are parts of this legislation that are, imo, not required, and should not be implemented. However the majority of posters are not arguing against anything specifically in the legislation. Those that have bothered to read it, get as far as incitement to hatred and pick issues with it, even when it has been pointed out time and time again, that it is already an offence, with basically the same wording.

I have no issue with posters having problems with this proposed legislation, if they are aware of what is included, or are willing to learn about what is included.

Anyway, threads were merged, the OP a few days ago asked if we were looking are democracy because of this, and of course, we are not.

Chips Lovell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118433000#Comment_118433000

The association was made, by you. It's not my fault that you misinterpreted what I said.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118433036#Comment_118433036

Grand. I don't agree, but no value going around in circles on this.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118433024#Comment_118433024

I know about the merged threads as I replied to that OP about democracy... which was an inaccurate concern, as democracy wouldn't be affected by such a proposal.

As for reading the legislation... I've seen the claims that posters haven't read it, just as I've seen the other posters remark that the entire bill isn't available to be read. Most posters are arguing over release statements about the legislation, or points of reference that were made in articles about the legislation. Personally, I suspect that many of the posters claiming that others haven't read it, haven't bothered reading it (what's available) themselves. Many of the concerns made were in relation to similar legislation implemented in other countries, which to be fair, would likely to have formed the basis in creating this legislation.

Bubbly, you've objected to others objections to the legislation even when they've shown that they're informed on the topic.

In any case, I'll leave it at that. I was responding to Chips remarks about the posters, and I have no interest in extending that discussion when it's been adequately covered already. Prefer to go back to observing the actual discussion over the legislation.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118433024#Comment_118433024

most of the things quoted are crimes covered in existing legislation. The new proposals remove the objective test on a crime being committing, and replaces it with the subjective feeling of the percieved victims. I have had one colleague go off reservation with a massive rant and claim victim status and claim all sorts of crimes against him by his colleagues because he is a Muslim. The reality was the actions against him were nothing to do with prejudice(ant muslim bigotry or racism) but entirely due to his laziness, incompetence and general shafting of non muslim colleagues. SO i feel like we could be prosecuted based on his subjective feelings, rather than the objective truth of the matter

Tell me how

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118437954#Comment_118437954

The new proposals remove the objective test on a crime being committing, and replaces it with the subjective feeling of the perceived victims.

Do you think the same argument could be used to argue against the need for spousal rape to be possible to prosecute as a crime? The same could be said about laws relating to discrimination or unfair treatment in the workplace, the subjective interpretation of the events are likely going to be very different. As is the case in the example you provided. Does that mean that we shouldn't have laws attempting to govern such activities?

Faugheen

It’s just dawned on me that a lot of the people who are so against this because of the false narrative of ‘restricting free speech’ are the same people who want to restrict people’s lives in other ways because of their ‘conservative values’.

Annasopra

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118437954#Comment_118437954

How? I dont see anything that could potentially be hate speech or hate crime or why you would be prosecuted.

Annasopra

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118438697#Comment_118438697

Yes. You will find some of the arguments about human rights and freedom of expression are quite hollow because they tend to come from people who want to restrict human rights and freedom of expression when they disagree with the expression. Theres also a refusal by a lot of people against this legislation to listen to alternative viewpoints or to acknowledge there are genuine issues with hate crime or hate speech. Its a very narrow view on the world.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118438729#Comment_118438729

under the proposed new laws, it doesnt have to be objectively hate or prejudice, it just has to be percieved as such as by the alleged victim/complainant

Palmach

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118438757#Comment_118438757

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/planned-hate-speech-laws-will-contain-higher-bar-for-prosecution-1.4438867

"he Government’s planned hate speech laws will contain a significantly higher bar for prosecution compared to similar laws that have led to controversial court cases in the UK.Minister for Justice Helen McEntee will on Thursday produce draft legislative proposals to greatly strengthen the State’s ability to tackle hate speech levelled against minorities.....................................................................................................Furthermore, unlike in the UK, the test for hate speech will be objective rather than subjective. There, speech can be treated as hateful if another member of the public believes it to be hateful. However under the Irish proposals, specific and pre-existing guidelines will be used to determine if speech is hateful, not just whether the alleged victim felt they were the victim of a hate attack.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118438834#Comment_118438834

thanks for that. reassuring, but it is a just a politicians promise. What is concerning in the quote, is that she proposes strengthening hate speech laws targetted against minorities, which is laudable, but the laws should tackle it evenly, ie, if we are going to have hate speech laws it should apply to everybody equally, not just a stick for one group to be beaten with.. Love your username BTW, heroes of mine too

Tell me how

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118438757#Comment_118438757

Why do you think this law is going to be applied any differently to other laws by the Gardai, DPP and courts system?

It's just scaremongering to suggest all it takes is one person to feel slighted and everything else will automatically happen.

As I pointed out earlier, several laws cover acts that are subjective either they are a problem or this one is unlikely to be.

Palmach

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118438906#Comment_118438906

A promise only that's true but the stridency with which she said it gives me the belief it will happen. Helen isn't exactly a stick your head above the parapet type and there's little doubt senior figures around her agree with her.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118439316#Comment_118439316

i hope you are right. She is a politician though

Quantum Erasure

may be relevant

Justice Minister Helen McEntee has said a new national strategy to tackle domestic, sexual and gender-based violence in the wake of the murder of Ashling Murphy will be introduced in the coming weeks, with the intention of adopting a zero-tolerance policy for violence against women.

Writing in the Sunday Independent today, Ms McEntee tells of her own experiences and asks why violence against women has been tolerated for so long.

“I myself often accepted it as just the way it was; that I had to take extra precautions as I walked home after a night out or had to put up with some casual misogyny. This will not be tolerated any longer,” she says.

I really don't think making women into some sort of a weak minority is any kind of answer.

There should be zero tolerance for all violent incidents against all people.

eagle eye

What has this to do with hate speech?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118483055#Comment_118483055

plan to criminalize being a dickead, not criminal behaviour per se. It will not stop murderers or rapists

TomTomTim

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118483055#Comment_118483055

What does tolerate even mean in this context?

The definition says: authorize, sanction, condone, indulge, agree to

According to the definition it's not tolerated. Something happening does not make it tolerated, so to me this is dangerous language from our MOJ.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118483356#Comment_118483356

Nothing. And it's nothing to do with the bill before the oireachtas at the moment.

Pussyhands

These type of people don't realise all the ways anonymity saved many people, from organising protests in 3rd world countries, to whistleblowing in any country.

https://twitter.com/Twitspc/status/1482852319393992710

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118488369#Comment_118488369

I think you don't realise the amount of porn and child abuse and other abuses that are online and the offender's will never be caught because of anonymous accounts.

Pussyhands

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118488391#Comment_118488391

No one is anonymous on the internet.

eagle eye

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118488391#Comment_118488391

I've a good idea, ban social media. That should solve the problem.

And those people you mention are using the dark web, as long as there's internet there'll be a dark web.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118488498#Comment_118488498

You would be surprised! It can be nearly impossible to identify someone, legally, if they are actively hiding.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118488507#Comment_118488507

There are not all using the dark Web, not at all.

BattleCorp1

https://4w.pub/man-convicted-for-misgendering-trans-identified-male/

Nice to see hate speech laws not going over the top. 🙄 🙄 🙄

Annasopra

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118499317#Comment_118499317

Do you think its ok to personally abuse a trans woman calling her a perverted male pig?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118500358#Comment_118500358

No. It's certainly not nice or ok.

But 3 weeks in prison and a 2k fine for saying something nasty over social media?

I think that is over the top.

BattleCorp1

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118500358#Comment_118500358

No, that's rude. But I don't think it should be illegal. If someone called me a perverted male pig, I wouldn't like it but it shouldn't be a crime.

eagle eye

If somebody calls me names or insults family members I just laugh at them. They obviously aren't very bright is my opinion on it.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118500358#Comment_118500358

Do you think it's acceptable for https://www.irishexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/arid-40787319.html this article to be published?

How can you claim this isn't hate speech?

Quantum Erasure

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118483356#Comment_118483356

this just in from the UK

"Government defeated as Lords vote to make misogyny a hate crime"

bill still has to go back to the house of commons to be passed, or not

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-60032465

end of the road

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118438697#Comment_118438697

sure it has yeah.

the reality is you have always believed it and are just claiming otherwise now to shoehorn your partly inaccurate claim into the thread.

quite a number of people who would be on our side on many issues probably even most have some valid concerns on this legislation.

end of the road

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118500358#Comment_118500358

no, i don't, it's disgraceful and the individual involved should be ashamed of themselves for their behaviour.

however such should never, ever be a criminal offense.

eagle eye

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118501227#Comment_118501227

I think it's a stupid person that does that. The person that does something like that deserves pity more than anything else, they are likely of low intelligence.

Faugheen

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118502224#Comment_118502224

I don't care what their concerns are. The concerns of 'restricting free speech' when they're in favour of restricting the rights of people because it suits their agenda doesn't wash with me.

Annasopra

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118503393#Comment_118503393

Fergus Finlay? Low intelligence? 🤣

RobbieTheRobber

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118501227#Comment_118501227

What exactly do you think is hate speech in that article?

Annasopra

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118502224#Comment_118502224

Lol.

Most of the people on about free speech are perfectly ok with hate speech because they agree with it.

RobbieTheRobber

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118504561#Comment_118504561

Free speech is very important when some posters want to degrade immigrants or abuse people for the sexuality they define themselves. But its obviously less important if an opinion piece article hurts their feelings.